http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550354.stm
This looks like serious stuff.
Russian tanks have reportedly entered South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia, though with a large Russian population and wants to breakaway from Georgia and has a militant separatist movement.
Large casualties already reported but not yet confirmed.
I'm what? I'm ants at a picnic?
It looks more serious than it looks, South Ossetia's pop is about 50-70k, why would Russia send 150 tanks and many troops, I think something does not look right.
Theres loads of oil pipes that go through that region,they want to maintain control of it.Theres been handbag stuff bewteen them before but your right,this is more serious.Bush today then being a hyprocite saying a bigger country shouldnt pick on a small country.
He probably thought Iraq was the biggest nation in the world.
I think the Russians may be trying to emphasise that they are the boss in their sphere of influence.
Might not be a good idea as I imagine the Georgians will react furiously to any entry into their territory.
I'm what? I'm ants at a picnic?
Yesterday according to the British media it was Georgian territory today its Russian.
It is Georgian territory afaikOriginally Posted by hoops1
Yesterday according to the British media it was Georgian territory today its Russian.
Reacted by furiously asking for a ceasefire.
Saakashvilli's attempts to manipulate this have backfired pretty spectacularly. He assumed that the whole of the Western world would row in behind anything he did, but even with his puppy-dog "poor little Georgia" pleas on CNN, the international reaction seems to indicate that he's been seen as the corrupt con-artist that he is.
Of course, if the Russians do something stupid like attacking Tbilisi, they could hand the initiative back to him.
All this shows how utterly useless the UN is. Israel can do what it likes because it knows that the US will veto any UN serious resolutions against it. China uses its veto in relation to Tibet and now Russia will use it in relation to Georgia.
Last edited by SMorgan; 09/08/2008 at 9:47 PM.
Russia's psyche was seriously dented by the humiliating break-up of the USSR and as it's energy wealth has grown exponentially over the past few years it's been spoiling for a fight to copper fasten it's reborn nationalistic pride. The shadow boxing with the UK (Litvenenko & recently BP) & USA (missile defence shield) wasn't enough and it seems Saakashvilli's been stupid enough to play into their hands whilst at the same time overestimating the support of the US.
AFAIK, the South Ossetians look towards Russia for protection. Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia as peace keepers and have been since 1992. Russian troops have a presence in most post Soviet Republics (e.g. in Armenia they guard the Armenian/Turkish and Armenian/Iranian borders, they patrol the ceasefire line in Armenia/Azerbaijan and guard the Uzbek and Tadjik borders with Afghanistan).
The South Ossetians wanted a larger degree of freedom from Tbilisi and to a certain extent they had this under Eduard Shevardnadze who arranged cease fires in the mid 1990s between Georgia and the break away regions (Abkhazia, Adjara and Ossetia). Russian troops patroled the ceasefire zones. After the Georgian Revolution in 2003 Saakashvili took over and since then he's been itching for a fight with Russia, and also Azerbaijan over the David Gareja border area.
Agreed. Veto is handy though as means you (e.g. Russia) can veto action by the rest of the UN security council against your own actions.
Russia will do whatever it wants to do & no amount of condemnations will change that.
Wonder did anyone see Newsnight last night on BBC2?
Jesus it looks like America is the new Soviet Union. The US has now bases in Poland, Czech rep and Romania, and were doing various military exercises in the black sea recently. So if Georgia does join Nato, then will the big boys step in to help?
Or did Georgia play its hand way too early, it could have at least waited till it was actually a member of Nato
Scary stuff how America is playing around with Russia, and its funny to see that China is hiding in the long grass having a good old laugh at us silly westerners.
The more I think about this, the less sense it makes.
The Georgian military is stuffed with American advisors, so the Americans had to know that the Georgians were going to attack South Ossetia, and presumably, the Georgians knew that the Americans wouldn't back them up in any meaningful way.
Did they take the huge gamble that the Russians wouldn't react, or were they gambling that the Russians would take it further and draw others in...which would have meant Georgia being obliterated?
Perhaps they were willing to take a bit of a kicking to get a sympathy vote and get let into NATO. Or was it a way for Saakashvilli to restore his domestic reputation? (see the "air raid" footage and the big rally in Tbilisi this evening..
Or do I just sound like a conspiracy theorist whacko?
Davey, I've been considering that myself. It seems Saakashvilli has been too naive or wanted this to happen. It's hard to go with the latter though, they've been really pummeled, it would be perverse to incite an onslaught of your own country to galvanise your position. Georgia has lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia possibly forever in quite the same fashion that Milosevic lost Kosovo for Serbia in 1999. It's too much of a gamble and loss to have any advantages. I reckon their instability has now destroyed their chances of admission to NATO. NATO will hardly want to admit a country that could potentially find itself in a position that would require NATO to go war with Russia. Saakashvilli has gambled badly and lost. They've lost their territory, they've taken civilian, military and infrastructural losses and they've been exposed as alone and vulnerable.
Saakashvilli has to go, he's totally out of his depth - a reckless fool utterly out of touch with the reality of the situation. He took a huge gamble and it's Georgia's people who have to pay.
If you actually look at a lot of these so called "pro-Western" leaders, like Saakashvilli and Yuschenko, after 2-3 years the hype ebbs away and the common people of the countries see nothing in terms of improvements... Then they tend to scrabble around for popular support and figure that baiting Russia is a good way to do it.
True. Russia won't leave those areas anytime soon & NATO want to prevent wars not join one. Russia also gets to put down a marker for anyone else who thinks they can take them on.
Still having problems....probably inevitable over the first few days of a truce
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7558399.stm
Tact is for people who are not witty enough to be sarcastic
I disagree with many of the posts above. Saakashvili didn't really gamble much, as its likely the Russian's would've pushed on if he hadn't. The Russian aggression towards Georgia has been building over the last few years and isn't a recent phenomena.
The outcome was essentially a foregone conclusion from the time Georgia started courting the US and looking for Nato membership. It was only a matter of time before Abkhazia and South Ossetia either joined Russia or are established as sovereign states.
You could argue that he cost lives by asserting (or attempting to assert) ownership over both dissident regions, but by forcing the Russian's hand he has at least elevated the issues to a global level and made Russia look like a bully. National spirit also shouldn't be underestimated.
The Caucuses are viewed as a bit of a tinderbox at the best of times and it will be interesting to see if there is any reaction in Armenia and Azerbaijan (where the soveignty of the Nagorno-Karabakh region has never really been sorted).
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks